This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Wilfrid is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Can the Heptarchy be described as being situated in England? I gather the use of the term British Isles can generate more wiki-friction than a Carpenter family gathering. Ning-ning (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went with the "island of Britain" construction in place of England. Wales might be cranky if we described them as in England....Ealdgyth - Talk16:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble with the "island of Britain in the British Isles" construction (as it is now) is that it seems to suggest that a certain other island is...British. The Heptarchy article places them in east, south and central Great Britain. The centre of Great Britain is Dunsop Bridge, so that's no good! How about Former Roman Province of Britannia? (FRPOB) Ning-ning (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, the archipeligo was known as the British Isles (grins). Great Britain is the political grouping of Scotland, Wales and England, right? And our Heptarchy article sucks. (And no, I'm not rewriting it either.. I've got enough on my plate..) I doubt we'll ever please everyone on this, but we have to be able to describe the entire island and the group of islands somehow. (Britania doesn't cover Scotland, unfortunately...) Ealdgyth - Talk17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Great Britain also includes Northern Ireland, and it's the Irish question that usually causes so much friction in more recent history. --MalleusFatuorum18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few facts/ myths about the British Isles :
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland sometimes abbreviated to Great Britain or United Kingdom is a political union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Britain is a geographical term for the island of England, Scotland and Wales. (though sometimes is incorrectly given as for the political union - rather like the term America is used for USA, when there are Canada and Mexico in N.America too).
The British Isles is a geographical term for the Islands of Britain, Ireland and all the other islands surrounding their coasts
The Heptarchy wasn't in England but the Heptarchy became England largely due to merger and conquest by the Kings of Wessex, don't forget that the ancient capital of England was Winchester not London!
According to some Irish myths and legends the name Britain was derived from an Irish chieftain who had to leave Ireland in a hurry and settled in the island that he gave his name too.
The Romans named what is now England and Wales Britannia
The name Great is derived from the French Grande Bretagne (meaning Big Britain) Petite Bretagne (Small Britain) is Britanny in France.
The Welsh probably have the biggest claim to the term British as they were there at the time of the Romans
From Background: "A late 7th-century source, the Tribal Hidage, lists the peoples south of the Humber river, which can be grouped into larger peoples such as the West Saxons (later Wessex), the East Angles and Mercians (later the kingdom of Mercia), and the kingdom of Kent. Smaller peoples who at the time had their own royalty ..." this reads really strangely to me. Let me see if I've got this right. There were giants and pygmies living in Anglo-Saxon England, and they had different kings ... :-)
It's『Here lies great Wilfrid’s bones. In loving zeal he built this church, and gave it Peter’s name, who bears the keys by gift of Christ the King; clothed in gold and purple, and set high in gleaming ore the trophy of the cross; golden Gospels four he made for it, lodged in a shrine of gold, as is their due. To the high Paschal feast its order just he gave, by doctrine true and catholic, as our forefathers held; drove error far, and showed his folk sound law and liturgy. Within these walls a swarm of monks he hived, and in their statues carefully laid down all the Fathers by their rule command. At home, abroad, long time in tempests tossed, thrice fifteen years he bare a bishop’s charge, passed to rest, and gained the joys of heaven. Grant, Lord, his flock may tread their shepherd’s path! (Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, McClure and Collins, eds. Oxford UP, 1994: p. 274)』Ning-ning (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a link to an online version of the epitaph in the external links. It's rather long to put in the body (considering the size Wilfrid's at already) Ealdgyth - Talk13:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make sense of the chronology in the second paragraph of Childhood and early education:
"Wilfrid studied at Lindisfarne for a brief time before going to Canterbury and the Kentish king's court there, where he stayed with friends of the queen for three years. The queen had sent a letter of introduction to her cousin, King Eorcenberht with Wilfrid, in 652, in order to assure Wilfrid's reception by the king."
He went to Lindisfarne in 648, but stayed there only briefly before going to Kent, yet Queen Eanflæd gave him this letter four years later, in 652, after he'd already spent three years living with friends of the queen? I'm not even sure which queen we're talking about; did he stay with friends of the Kentish queen or friends of Eanflæd? --MalleusFatuorum15:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Missions in Sussex: "... the evidence is mainly from the wording of charters and is thus unclear." It's not obvious to me why it necessarily follows that because the evidence is from the wording of charters it's unclear. --MalleusFatuorum15:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from "Missions in Sussex"- he taught the South Saxons to fish. Deep sea trawling or fly fishing? If the latter, should the sentence about the miraculous end of the drought come first? Ning-ning (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have always doubted this but thats what the sources say - that Wilfrid's men from up North taught the South Saxons to fish before which they committed suicide by drowning during periods of famine. It seems they used fish traps before, but trawling would be unlikely as you need to be moving the boat forward at a constant rate. Other forms of net fishing such as drift or seine netting seem more likely or potting. I think this was actually Christian propaganda. Wilfrid got them all praying and the ones that were left standing at the end of the famine were led to believe that they were on the receiving end of a miracle. Also Wilfrid & his monks were granted quite a spread by Aethelweah (whom it seems he later connived to kill with Caedwalla)so the people displaced thereby might well have starved.--Streona (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, we don't know WHAT type of fishing was taught. Shirley-Price translates it as "For when Wilfrid had first arrived in the province and found so much misery from famine, he taught the people to obtain food by fishing; for although fish were plentiful in the sea and rivers, the people had no knowledge of fishing and caught only eels. So the bishop's men collected eel-nets from all sides and cast them into the sea, where, by the aid of God's grace, they quickly caught three hundred fishes of various kinds." Very much a "miracle story" and noteworthy that it's not in the Life of Wilfrid. Although I've not seen this mentioned in any secondary source, it's noteworthy that this may be a parallel to Christ's "fisher's of men" theme. Ealdgyth - Talk00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Abbot of Ripon: "Bede makes little mention of the relationship between Ceolfrith and Wilfrid, but it was Wilfrid who consecrated Ceolfrith a priest and who gave permission for him to transfer to Wearmouth." Shouldn't this be Wearmouth-Jarrow? --MalleusFatuorum15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be. Let me double check that they were actually a double monastery by then (Wearmouth-Jarrow's one of those really complicated fun monasteries that give me heartburn...) Ealdgyth - Talk15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed it. The source consistently uses Wearmouth for the whole complex so we're safe enough going Wearmouth-Jarrow. Ealdgyth - Talk15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Legacy: "Another source says that Oswald, archbishop of York, who was Odo's nephew ...". Another source from which other source? We didn't name a source for the first account of events. --MalleusFatuorum15:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And added a bit more that gives a better explanation for the discrepancy. Because, of course, this article needed MORE footnotes and sources, right? Ealdgyth - Talk15:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Resignation and death: "After his final return to Northumbria Wilfrid retired to the monastery at Ripon. He lived there until his death at Oundle, Northamptonshire,[151] at the age of 75." If he lived at Ripon until his death, then how come he died at Oundle? --MalleusFatuorum15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Ripon and Oudle aren't far away. I believe he was off visiting one of his foundations, but resided at Ripon most of the time. (Like when I go visit my sibling, if I die there, I'd still be residing in Illinois when I die, even though I died out west) Ealdgyth - Talk16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Monastic network:『It was Ælffled who helped persuade the Northumbrians to allow Wilfrid to return from his last exile.』this appears to come out of the blue; who was Ælffled? --MalleusFatuorum16:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ripon and Oundle are 140 miles apart (straight down the Great North Road and turn right just after Peterborough). Old age pensioner on an 'orse, ten miles a day, s'bout a fortnight's travel. Also he was in bad health due to the previous year's seizures. Maybe there's another Oundle nearer Ripon? Ning-ning (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only one Oundle. Strange, that his body was treated as a cult object immediately after his death, that the washing water caused miracles- all this must have happened at Oundle, and then the miracle-working body transported back to Ripon- must have been quite a procession up the Great North Road. Ning-ning (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Family tree for Oswiu, showing his ancestry and children". Isn't this image caption a little redundant? Isn't that what all family trees do? --MalleusFatuorum20:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but do you have a better suggestion for the caption? (I suck even more at captions than I do at commas...) Ealdgyth - Talk20:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from Synod: "Wilfrid acted as Agilbert's interpreter, as the latter did not speak the local language, when Wilfrid was chosen to present the Roman position to the council." Doesn't seem to quite make sense. Should that be "when Agilbert was chosen ..."? --MalleusFatuorum20:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Wilfred was chosen to present the Roman position to the council; he had also to act as interpreter for Agilbert as the latter did not speak the local language."?? If Agilbert failed to make himself understood in Wessex, suggests that he could understand varieties of English but was deficient in speaking it. Ning-ning (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Diocesan affairs: "Traditionally historians have identified him as the author of the Life of Wilfrid, Stephen of Ripon, which has led to assumptions that the Life was based on a long time companion of Wilfrid's." Is this really saying that the Life wasn't about Wilfrid at all, but about one of his long time companions? --MalleusFatuorum01:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's very confused so I see where you're confused. I managed to mangle that nicely. Let's try『Bede says that this singing master was named Æddi (or Eddius in Latin) and had the surname Stephen. Traditionally historians have identified Æddi as same as Stephen of Ripon, the author of the Life of Wilfrid, which has led to assumptions that the Life was based on the memories of a long time companion of Wilfrid's.』That better? Ealdgyth - Talk01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Whitby: "Abels identifies several conflicts contributing to the council ...". I'm unclear whether these conflicts contributed to the council being called, or whether they were played out in the council itself. --MalleusFatuorum17:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reworded to "Abels identifies several conflicts contributing to both the calling of the council and its results, including a generational conflict between Oswiu and Alhfrith and the death of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Deusdedit." Is that better? Ealdgyth - Talk17:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're about set. Pics all look good to me, we're set on other stuff. If no objections are raised, I'll pop this up at FAC tomorrow morning my time. Ealdgyth - Talk12:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great article that's had loads of work put into it. What it lacks just now is a paragraph describing the sources. Although all the details of Wilfrid's life have been cited to modern historians, it would have helped is citations were doubled up to make it clear where the claims come from. It'd be a lot of work to do it now, but if it was done from the beginning it would have saved work. The reader will not know the authority of each claims (is it from Stephen, Bede, a charter, a letter, an inferential argument by a modern historian, etc). In this period, as opposed to later periods, even the most junior history student is expected to know the relationship between events and sources. The reader would certainly read the article in a different way if he/she knew that 95% of claims in the article come from a hagiography composed by monks in the Ripon-Hexham network who needed to prove that Wilfrid was a saint (i.e. that God had actually chosen to endow him with miraculous abilities and hence a direct trip to Heaven at death), and that Wilfrid, and thus Ripon-Hexham, did all those things claimed and hence should get the consequent rights and prestige.
Some other minor points.
Different modern historians use "Gaels", "Irish", and "Scots" for the same people. The article however should choose one, and probably explain what's going on with the terminology. Gaels is probably the best one, as unlike Irish or Scottish, it is not a modern geopolitical concept.
Why is Whitby in the infobox? The infobox is about a person, a saint, not a church. Moreover, Whitby is not particularly connected to Wilfrid. That would be either Ripon or Hexham. I think an image of Wilfrid should be there. Medieval or not, he is a saint, which makes him a contemporary figure, in that millions of modern people pray to him and ask him to get God to do things for them.
I've left some <!-- comment here -->s in the article, which you can find by Find command of "<--".
Regarding "biggest church in western Europe outside Italy", this is still kinda implausible. I'd need to check, but I find it difficult to believe that the embryonic religious establishment of Northumbria could command more resources that the Kings of the Franks and of Spain. It was really bigger than the churches at Trier, Lyons, Toledo, and such places? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All power to your first major suggestion, but I don't think that Wikipedia's articles need to be written that way. I don't have a problem writing a paragraph in the background setting out the sources and pointing out that large chunks come from Stephen of Ripon, but I think citing the originals next to the modern historians isn't how we should approach these sorts of articles. Citing the original sources leaves you open to charges of OR and implies that the writer consulted the original sources, which in all honesty, I don't do, in order to avoid OR. As for the pic in the infobox, there are no pics of Ripon or Hexham, at least of the vaults, which are the parts coming from his time. I can move the manuscript pic up if you'd like, but I really do not think a modern depiction of him is correct. It's misleading, because we can't know if its correct or not. (One pic I had in for a while had him in vestments that were probably not at all correct. Another, of his "coat of arms" was just plain ... odd.) I've replied to your inline comments. Ealdgyth - Talk15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
on the church thing... Note that it's Ailred of Rivaulx who said that, not some modern historian. It's very carefully credited to him, not to a modern source. I've not run into anything that says he was wrong though. Ealdgyth - Talk15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ailred also said that it was embelished with paintings and scultures, and that Wilfrid designed it. Perhaps reword this to avoid the size issue to something like "Ailred of Rivelaux, a 12th century writer whos family restored Hexham, recorded that Wilfrid's church building was beautifully embellished with paintings and sculpture, and that Wilfrid himself designed the church."? That work better without creating the size problems for you? I like it better, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that the phraseology of such pages (like WP:OR) haven't yet been adapted to take account of professional historiographic needs for periods like this, but even with this it can't be OR if you cite both the historian making the claim and the source being used (which should be in a note left by the modern historian, and if it isn't, in general that historian may not be reliable). If you don't do that too you risk passing off the same source claim as two or more different events (which I've seen happen many times), by not giving yourself an opportunity to grasp that different historians are interpreting the same source in a different way. It is definitely good practice. In fairness to yourself, though, you consistently don't cite primary sources, so I can't say you're inconsistent.:) There is no doubt that this would make the article better though.
The Ailred of Rievaulx claim is pretty implausible. He was just a local boy marvelling at a local wonder. I seriously doubt he would have used the phrase "Biggest church in western Europe outside Italy". That's definitely the phrase of a modern historian. I don't think it's the kind of statement that a modern historian would assign enough importance to contradict, so it doesn't matter if no modern historian specifically has contradicted it. It is clearly not true.
I guess we're just gonna disagree with the image thing. If you got a good quality picture of that medieval icon of Wilfrid from Hexham Abbey, that would be pretty good. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the manuscript pic up to the infobox. I've changed out the Ailred stuff to show that he found it beautifully decorated, rather than the biggest thing ever. I've also added two paragraphs in the backgroup about the sources for Wilfrid's life, which hopefully should make the limited nature of the source material more clear. How do things look now? (Malleus, the two new paragraphs probably need tweaking... I wrote them fast...) Ealdgyth - Talk16:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I've still got a bit to add to the sources section, mainly about minor mentions of Wilfrid in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, etc. But it'll have to wait until I get home from picking my child up from a school trip. Ealdgyth - Talk17:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, added. Just waiting on Deacon's opinion on whether that's enough to convey the fact that our information is extremely limited. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should convey the limited nature, but to be useful to one of its target audiences (US undergrads), it needs more about the specific problems and issues regarding these sources, the aims and provenance of each one, why they say different things at different points (in the case of Bede and Stephen), and so on. But this, to be ideal, needs to be matched by corresponding transparency of source use throughout the article, which you've said you're not gonna do. Well, this will pass whether you appease me or not, so proceed whenever you're happy about it yourself. The new source bit is a wee bittie thin though. Perhaps you could churn out a stub on the Life of St Wilfrid while doing it. Two birds with one and a half stone! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Life is in the cards, still gathering a few sources (waiting on U of I to get back in a copy of a conference I need an article from ...) I'll see what else is floating around the house that might be added in on the sources. (Anything YOU have would be good too, we all know I'm not an early medievalist.) Ealdgyth - Talk03:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I've beefed up the sourcing section a bit more. I think we're close here. I'm going to troll for a few more pictures, because FA reviewers always want more of them... If someone would double check my spelling and prose in the sources section, that'd be wonderful. Ealdgyth - Talk15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Background-Sources, the term medieval is used twice to describe the biography, and Bede- medieval historian. Is this correct? Ning-ning (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you asking? Is Bede medieval? Yes, he is. He's actually contemporary with Wilfrid, and Wilfrid served as Bede's diocesan bishop at one point. I guess I'm not clear on what you're asking is correct. Ealdgyth - Talk20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies- what it is, in popular culture the term "medieval" gets used alongside "Middle Ages" so it seemed anachronistic to me. Ning-ning (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most modern historians would say that Bede is a historian, not just a medieval writer. He did attempt to write history, much like Tacitus, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Wilfrid was the second Bishop of Leicester, the Jewry Wall and associated church of St Nicholas with its Saxon and re-used Roman masonry may be associated with him. Just mentioning it in case the article needs more pics. Ning-ning (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely unknown that Frisian Aldgisl was located in Utrecht. Depending the source he was either a king or just a duce. Lz89z1 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My revisions of earlier today were reverted by Bencherlite without mention on my or this talk page. I understand that all articles concerning religious figures can give rise to significant emotional attachments, particularly when, as here, they once achieved Featured Article status. Plus, this article in its introduction explains that Wilfred in particular remains a controversial figure. I also appreciate that after giving the date as an equal alternate (referring to a Roman catholic lay saintsbook (Walsh)), this article's Legacy section discusses medieval mentions at length without noting that since the massive 1969 revisions the Catholic church no longer celebrates Wilfred's translation in April. As far as I can tell, including from Calendar of saints (Church of England), the Church of England only includes Wilfred as one of several possible commemorations on October 12 and choses to commemorate only Mellitus (the first bishop of St. Paul's London), or the martyrs of the Melanesian Brotherhood on April 24, the date on which the Episcopal Church has long officially remembered the Armenian genocide (and other genocides). Thus the same non-translation-commemoration reasoning that Catholicism adopted in 1969 also holds true for the Anglican communion, and thus, the articles' giving both dates as equal status in the textbox and text in is incorrect.Jweaver28 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I undid one change you made, explaining exactly why I did so in my edit summary - that edit made the infobox inconsistent with the body of the article and changed one assertion of fact to another assertion of fact without giving a source. If you can give a better source than the one that's already in the article (and by "better source", I don't mean another Wikipedia article, of course) for the feast day or days of St Wilfrid, please edit the article accordingly. I have no attachment, emotional or otherwise, to this article - I am merely the TFA coordinator who picked the article to be "today's featured article" on the main page, and so I keep an eye on changes to TFAs. Thanks, BencherliteTalk08:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your changes in the body of the article because you're changing sourced information. You cannot make a source state something that it doesn't - which is what you're doing when you add "(until 1969)" to the information sourced from Walsh. Walsh doesn't make any such claim. Walsh doesn't even mention the October date - which leads me to believe the Orthodox Church at least still uses the April date. And even if the Catholic Church has changed it's feast day ... it still for almost 1200 years used the April date - that clearly means we still need to mention in the infobox. (Frankly, I'd prefer to not use the feast day field at all in cases like this but that's the joys of infoboxes - they simplify things that are complex.) Ealdgyth - Talk13:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh's book is not just a "Roman Catholic lay saintsbook" - he lists not just RC but CoE and Orthodox saints. It's a secular motivated secondary source. Ealdgyth - Talk13:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh is Catholic (maybe even a priest) and his paperback popularization of Catholic traditions that you've cited has considerable (even notorious) limitations. One of the Vatican II reforms (that frankly the Orthodox haven't gotten around to yet) was removing these translation days from the liturgical calendar in favor of the death anniversary, as happened with Wilfred. A more reputable source, David Farmer's Oxford Dictionary of Saints (new Edition) p. 506 lists April 24 as only the translation, and only October 12 as the feast day. I also noticed that you chose not to address the correct CoE liturgical commemoration for April 24 that I noted. That said, I have neither the time nor desire to engage in a trivia contest with you. The article is good, and frankly I'm disappointed in your emotional attachment to this point and a bad ref. I can't research it in Walsh's more recent book (cited and linked in the next discussion on this page)--apparently because I've tried to look at that too many times according to google books--so I'll only note that I didn't write the only review, which called it "filled with more inaccurate information than any other book I have researched!" Jweaver28 (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It says here that Annemund died in 660; however, on his Wikipedia page, it says 658. Also, the French version of Annemund's Wikipedia page lists his death as occurring in either 657 or 663. Russian and Spanish pages both have 658. Anyone knows which is the right date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmab (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the time frame - it could be any of those. This one is sourced... and Annemund's article isn't ... likewise, the french version is unsourced. The Spanish and Russian versions appear to be translations of the English version, complete to unsourced-ness. So... if we ever get around to someone sourcing the Annemund article we'll see what happens. Ealdgyth - Talk22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Annemund article is sourced (p. 79); the Balthild article has Bede stating the death as occurring in 658. Also, this book lists the date as occurring on 28 September 658 (p. 28). I haven't found any source that give 660 as his death. Most agree with the French page, either 657 or 658, or 663. Drmab (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one translation of Bede actually says that the bishop of Lyons that Wilfrid dealt with (and that was murdered) was Dalfin, who was actually the count. Nor does this translation of Bede actually give a date for the death - (Shirley-Price's translation - pp. 307 and 308.). Wallace-Hadrill's Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People: A Historical Commentary says (p. 192) that it was Aunemundus as the bishop and that the family name was Dalfinus. He refers to a 1928 article/book by A. Colville, and Wallace-Hadrill states "Bede appears to have had no other source than Eddius." It appears that it's Stephen of Ripon who actually gives the date - and Thatcher in the ODNB entry for Wilfrid (which is the source for the information here) states that Stephen is mistaken. Thatcher's a quite reliable source here. The footnote in the Bathild article ... is unsourced - and just says "Bede" - but Bede says "Dalfinus" not Annemund - it's the translators who are supplying the Annemund name. Nor does Bede give a date at all ... the whole section is a description of Wilfrid's career - starting with his early life. The section is not exactly chronologically exact - lots of "several months" or "several years", and never a solid date during the period we are concerned with. Ealdgyth - Talk20:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that after I wrote my comment. Bede does talk about Dalfinus, and doesn't really give a date. Still, the being section being chronologically vague, we might want to remove the 660 date and maybe add a note Drmab (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got Michael J. Walsh, A New Dictionary of Saints: East and West, Bunson, Margaret, et al., Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Saints and the Catholic Encyclopedia which all agree that Genesius, who succeeded Annemund as archbishop of Lyon, being appointed in either 657 or 658 (by Balthild). It's a good bet our man was dead when that happened. Drmab (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of the sources on which this article is based use "Celtic" not "Irish". The only reason I haven't bothered with changing it back is that I'm entirely too busy with real life ... but most of your changes to "Irish" from "Celtic" aren't actually supported by the sources used for the statements. Ealdgyth - Talk12:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted most of Ferganim's recent edits. Ferganim has been replacing the term "Celtic" at various articles, and this is often for the best, but in cases like this "Celtic" is the appropriate conventional term, apparently used in the relevant sources. It's not on point to simply replace "Celtic" with "Irish", let alone "Irish and English". The "Celtic" dating of Easter was used in both Ireland and Wales as well as churches under their sphere of influence. As this is a featured article, substantial changes need to be vetted closely.--Cúchullaint/c13:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is becoming a problem. "Celtic" is a problemmatic term, as we all know, but scholarship has found it difficult to replace with another blanket term. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not strip months/seasons out of journal cites - they are an important part of verification. Also - there is no requirement that authors be in "last= | first= " format. A wholesale change like that needs discussion (I personally find it easier to alphabethize). I had actually restored all the months before I ran into an edit conflict which made it jsut easier to do the full revert. Will add back in the subscription= yes changes in a moment. Ealdgyth - Talk20:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no I won't. The ODNB sub template actually helps the reader further than just saying "subscription needed". This way people in the UK will know that they do have the subscription, something that jsut saying "Subscription needed" doesn't do. Ealdgyth - Talk20:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand on the ODNB; I did not want to be an interloper, but I thought the double-layer of parentheses looked strangely awkward, and there was already a "subscription" style built in to the CS1 template. I did not want to cause offense. My apologies as well for months/seasons; I saw some had them, but not all, and so they were accidental; additionally, they seemed to my eye a distraction from the more-important year (as well as being generally redundant with the issue number). However, again, if that's the deliberate style, sorry for stepping where I shouldn't have. However, this is my reasoning for the "|last= |first=" format: The article already has footnotes and references; I had thought though one of the SFN types to link these footnotes directly to the reference list, which can only be done with "|last=" not "|author="—unless the shortened footnote always includes the first name of the author. I do suppose that on a featured article I should have come here to discuss it first rather than starting myself. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conscious decision to not use the sfn templates because sfn doesn't allow the display of the title. Instead, you're forced to use the year to distinguish between works by the same author. It's harder to remember years than it is titles, especially when editing, but also when looking up refs. Ealdgyth - Talk18:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me—the choice is readability over link-ability. However, if that's so, then wouldn't Vancouver style work better for the references list, as it is author-title rather than author-date? This also might aid sorting visually when adding a new source. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that he studied in "Gaul", specifically Lyon. I'm no expert, but I don't think I've heard that term used to refer to the area in the 7th century before. My understanding is that it isn't really used after the fall of the western Roman empire and the Frankish conquests. Wouldn't "Frankish Kingdom" or "Burgundy" be more appropriate? Hairy Dude (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coates says "Wilfrid intervened in Frankish politics and probably used a Gallican service for the consecration of his altar at Ripon." (which is the source for footnote 49), so we're just following the source here. Ealdgyth - Talk02:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps, I just noticed coincidentally that Patrick Wormald uses the expression "Frankish Gaul" in a 7th-century context in Campbell, J. (ed.; 1982), The Anglo-Saxons, Phaidon, p. 97. Nortonius (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Wilfrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Wilfrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Done --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
